Posted on 03/26/2008 7:52:32 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Liberals, who seek “control” over the people by way of “control” over their right to bear arms, hang their hat on this section of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia,” claiming that the right to own and bear arms is restricted to only a “well regulated militia,” meaning the government.
Conservatives who seek to conserve and preserve the highest degree of freedom among law abiding citizens and maintain a fundamental right of self-defense hang their hat on this section of the same Constitutional clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – taking the position that a “well organized militia” can only be formed and mobilized, of and by a well armed society.
(snip)
Throughout history, freedom has belonged only to those willing to defend it by force, against enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic.
Any American who seeks to strip law abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms is indeed an enemy of freedom and individual liberty, be they private citizen, elected official, or un-elected arbiter of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
The sad fact that some on the Supreme Court will intentionally rule against founding constitutional rights should concern every American, whether they like owning guns or not...
And that "our" president supports the gun-grabbers.
Even if the ruling goes wrong, would it be possible for it to be sidestepped by having a future president simply declare every law-abiding citizen a member of "the militia?"
But BE RESPECTFUL!!!!
Right now it looks like Scalia, THomas, Alitto, Roberts, Kennedy and even Ginsburg believe the Second Amendment is an individual right and the Washignton D.C. Law is uncosntitutional.
We shouldn't jeopardize their votes with rantings and threats.
CORRECT!
There is already a federal statute, passed in 1803, that declares all men from the age of 18 to 45 members of the militia.
From the Article: "Any American who seeks to strip law abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms is indeed an enemy of freedom and individual liberty, be they private citizen, elected official, or unelected arbiter of the law."
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I think this quote is vital to your question...
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason (Co-author of the Second Amendment)
A “malitia” is NOT a standing army of the government. It is an armed society able to be assembled at will in defense of freedom and liberty.
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC. 20543
RE: District of Columbia v. Heller
Interesting... I am wondering then why this law cannot be used to get around DC's illegal gun ban.
Can you post it here please? (or link it)
The constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on without the individual right to bear arms.
No...they’ll say taht we have a right to keep, but not a right to “bear” them.
My favorite take on the 2nd amend. From an editorial in the Phil. Bulletin.
“The Bill of Rights was written by Congressman James Madison to fulfill a promise made to the Anti-Federalists after pressure from that group had cost him a senate seat – pressure brought to bear because of his opposition to amending the Constitution with a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights, then, as any history book will confirm, came into being to satisfy the single most suspicious, vociferous, and relentless foes of the new federal government.
That is the all-important context in which the Bill of Rights was created. The Anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. Knowing this alone, knowing that the famous Bill exists only to please those most apprehensive of the new government, definitively ends any confusion or debate surrounding the meaning of the Second Amendment.
There is simply no way on Earth the Anti-Federalists would have surrendered to the new and mistrusted government the right to own any gun they wanted at any time they wanted in any number they wanted.
To believe differently, to believe that the Second Amendment actually gives the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, one must believe the absolutely unbelievable. One must believe that the Anti-Federalists, fearing and loathing federal power, compelled Madison to compose this laundry list of rights, this list of things over which the government was to have no authority, and very near the very top of the list, these people in fear of the federal government desired a clause that reads, “Despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 prohibits you federal government people from infringing on our firearms rights, we hereby correct that mistake and surrender to you a right which we previously held, but wish now to give away.”
We must further believe that James Madison was such a monumentally incompetent and abysmal writer that, when trying to give the federal government this new authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms, the last fourteen words of the amendment read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
We must also believe that revolutionary American history conceals some hitherto unknown and utterly undocumented groundswell of public desire for gun control.
Picture in your mind for a moment the rough-and-tumble individualist who gave birth to this nation, a man who had tamed a wilderness, fought Indian wars on and off for 180 years, and successfully faced down the world’s mightiest empire. Hold a picture of that man in your head for a moment and then try to imagine him being told that this new federal government would have the power to regulate his ownership of firearms in any manner it saw fit, including imprisoning him for possession of any firearm for any reason at any time.
No honest or serious man could ever claim to believe that any part of the American electorate desired federal gun control, let alone the Anti-Federalists who forced the creation of the Bill of Rights.”
ZULU has it right though, respectfully.
EXCELLENT post!
VERY well stated! How easily we forget!
“A “malitia” is NOT a standing army of the government. It is an armed society able to be assembled at will in defense of freedom and liberty.”
As well as Jusitce, lest we forget our brothers and sisters in arms protecting themselves, their property, and their neighbors and neighbor’s property from the perps and looters in post natural disaster states.
The 2nd makes no such distinction.
Amen!
The Supremes know that the purpose of government is to secure the life, liberty and happiness of the people.
If government become “destructive of these means” the Founding Fathers wrote that they expected us to do exactly what they did.
As just a few examples: the current invasion of our country by Mexico, Kelo, and the ongoing destruction of unborn children.
And the fact that out of 300 million citizens, the best we can do for the job of chief executive is a fat-assed Marxist, a closet muslim and an insane liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.